In the schema of historical materialism, communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from
oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the
proletariat is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from
privatism, to collective ownership. In political science, the term "communism" is sometimes used to refer to communist states, a form of government
in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof.

Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society,
or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations. Anarchists may widely disagree on what additional
criteria are required in anarchism.

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker
ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic
system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labour, along with a
corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions, the method of resource allocation and
post-monetary calculation based on some physical magnitude; often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labour
expended or individual contribution.

Eco-socialism, green socialism or socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, green politics, ecology and
alter-globalization. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and
environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transnational structures.

The most common religious viewpoint which might be described as 'left wing' is social justice, or care for the poor and the oppressed (see
Minority groups). Supporters of this might encourage universal health care, welfare provision, subsidized education, foreign aid, and Affirmative
Action for improving the conditions of the disadvantaged. Stemming from egalitarian values, adherents of the Christian left consider it part of their
religious duty to take actions on behalf of the oppressed. As nearly all major religions contain some kind of requirement to help others, social
justice has been cited by various religions as in line with their faith.

Social democracy supports gradualism, in the belief that a gradual process of reforming existing capitalist economies in a democratic manner
will succeed in creating socialism.**********Social democracy promotes the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.
Social democracy rejects the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights
of the working class.

Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a
legitimate role for government in addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, education while simultaneously expanding
civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.

Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action and the minimization or even
abolition of the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints ranging from a minimal state (or minarchist) to anarchist.

Conservative liberal parties combine liberal policies with more traditional stances on social and ethical issues. They are generally supporters
of economic liberalism and they often identify themselves as law and order-parties, which are tougher on crime and support higher levels of punishment
and are more committed to fighting terrorism. Conservative liberals differ from social liberals because they place less emphasis on ethical issues and
are often in favour of stricter control of illegal immigration and are usually less tolerant of multiculturalism.

Rather than referring to a combination of classical conservatism and free-market economic ideas, it refers to free-market (in this context,
"conservative", because most conservative parties in Europe have adopted economic liberalism) economics allied with culturally liberal views - on
issues such as gay marriage, for example. This position is sometimes associated with support for moderate forms of the welfare state and of
environmentalism.

Neoconservatism is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic
and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. Consequently the term is chiefly applicable to certain
Americans and their strong supporters. In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a
welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-imperialist
right-wing political philosophy in the United States stressing tradition, civil society and along with religious, regional, national and Western
identity.

National conservatism is related to social conservatism, and as such may be heavily oriented towards the traditional family and social
stability. According to one Austrian scholar, "national conservatism praises the family as a home and a centre of identity, solidarity and
emotion."

The Christian right (also known as the religious right and the evangelical bloc) is a term used predominantly in the United States of America
to describe a spectrum of right-wing Christian political and social movements and organizations characterized by their strong support of conservative
social and political values.

Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.*****In
contrast, Fascists promote action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will. They oppose liberalism — as a bourgeois movement — and Marxism — as
a proletarian movement — for being exclusive economic class-based movements.

Good thread! Star and flag for you, sir. It's always nice to see a bit of education on political philosophies as I think many people throw around
terms such as "communism", "socialism", or "libertarianism" without really knowing what they mean.

As for me, I don't believe there is one specific -ism that can describe my political philosophy, as I believe there are some great policies in all
areas of the spectrum that need to be used if the leadership is to be efficient and useful, however, if I must choose one, I would say that I would
choose Social Liberalism.

However, I may differ than the true definition because at heart I love many socialist values, however, I also believe much in the state. I believe the
state is the only entity large enough to control corporations and the populace, and thus must use that power effectively.

I suppose I could say I would be in favour of a Nanny-state. I love rights, and I love freedom to a certain extent, but I've seen our corporate
culture get out of hand and materialism take over ethics and morality. This needs to change.

Hmmmm... I guess libertarian, but a truly functioning republic with the smallest central government possible is ideal. A central government that only
facilitates trade, and cooperation without forcing it. Problems should be worked out locally. But in times of disaster a central group is needed to
organize. I also think there needs to be an actual contract you sign when you turn 20, like the social contract but a physical one. I know, however,
that it is unrealistic and could be manipulated horribly. Just make sure that it is impossible to make it bind you to things you don't want to do,
and has an option to leave anytime.

Edit to add: But we also need to give everyone free land that they can live on just for being alive. However this could only work with at least mild
growth controls (for population). But I guess now I'm bordering on a discussion on sustainability...

Libertarian who leans Socialist wishing for an Anarchist society although it's not going to happen. Also, I am for going "Green".

Pretty much a hippy.

(Anti-war, pro-legalization of marijuana (no, I have never tried it))

I am also for making the taxes as low as possible, and the economy as efficient as possible. I want to do lots of stuff with as little money as
possible. I don't just want to go green to save the Earth. Going green also tends to save money.

Paleoconservatism...yup, that is what I ism. I like John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, God, Mom, apple pie, hotdogs, church, guns, flying the flag, cowboys,
still say Yes Sir and Yes Mam, love me some Hank Jr, Skynyrd, Merle Haggard, the Alamo, Robert E Lee, and pick up trucks.

I don't like Commies or Socialists, don't condone the gay lifestyle.... but what you do is your business, don't like folks that run from a
challenge, never asked for a handout from anyone, don't like Quiche or those little dabs of food in over indulgent restuarants, don't like neck
ties...but I wear them to church and to funerals, and I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't do.

I'm sick and tired of politically correct mumbo jumbo, waking up and wondering of I now live in a damn communist country, and I'm mad as hell at
rising taxes, rising costs of debt and inflation thanks to our government, and I'm tired of our president bending over and kissing the world's rear
end, taking a hands off approach to every crisis appointing another czar or blue ribbon panel to figure out do we start with the little fork or the
big fork...

I'm tired of people calling me iggnorant and blind for believing in God and Jesus...if you don't, fine. I'll invite you to church and you can say
"no thank you" and we'll both let it rest at that.

Thanks...I feel better. You should know what I am now....I guess redneck might fit... sounds good to me.

I agree with you 100% my friend. I am an extremely strong proponent of a large welfare state. I really like the Nordic countries for example.

But they are so small and homogenous that I think it would be hard to impliment in such a large country i.e. USA. France has just about the same,
maybe a little less Liberal on personal issues, but overall I like the French model.

I am a very strict Civil Libertarian, that I will not budge on. I still support a market economy because I think it allocates resources better than
the government, but on certain things i.e. health care, telecommunication, energy, natural resources, banking, major industry, education, welfare; I
think the government works better.

Distributism, also known as distributionism and distributivism, is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Roman Catholic thinkers
as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic Social Teaching articulated by the Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo
XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno According to distributism, the
ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the
control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (plutarchic capitalism). A summary of distributism is
found in Chesterton's statement: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."

Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of capital that would be
carried out by most socialist plans of governance). While socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state,
community, or workers' control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners
of productive property. As Hilaire Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains "an
agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production." This broader distribution does not
extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive.
It includes land, tools, etc.

Yes, unlike most people here on ATS, I too am a big proponent of large welfare states, along with a nanny-state-like ideology. I believe in high
taxes, large social safety nets, universal health care, and large Government intervention in the market that has run amok during these past few
years.

On social issues, (if I was at the helm with no opposition) I would ban pornography, legalize homosexual unions, legalize marijuana, clamp down hard
(and I mean really hard) on the rest of the drugs, continue to further subsidize education, raise the drinking age, and encourage public participation
in politics, whether it was in my favour or not. I would adhere to freedom of and from religion, but at the same time, hope to represent the fine
points of Jesus Christ's teachings, along with large amounts of other knowledge from the Bible including from the book of Proverbs. However, I DO NOT
believe in a theocracy, but do believe in a healthy separation of church and state.

Profit driven corporations are our enemy. The free market is our enemy. The only thing that can save us is large, overarching policy branded under the
grand name of "The State".

This is interesting, that from the descriptions here I would have to be a hybrid Libertarian-paleoconservative. I see there are four categories
between, but seemingly did not apply to me.

Originally posted by time91
Hmmmm... I guess libertarian, but a truly functioning republic with the smallest central government possible is ideal.
...
But we also need to give everyone free land that they can live on just for being alive. However this could only work with at least mild growth
controls (for population).

How do you say Libertarian but thing everyone should get free land? This seems contradictory to me.

I nearly had a stroke, aneurysm, heart attack and a conniption all at once reading that post. You should have put a warning at the beginning. Even
now, from all the contradictions made in that post, I find myself perplexed and in need of a stiff drink.

Good sir, thank you for the smile. Perhaps a warning would be in order. But, like I have said, my political philosophies are all over the map. Perhaps
there is a particular issue that I should further explain? I do admit that my beliefs do seem contradictory, but I assure you, they make sense in my
head

I support free public univeral health care, free public education from pre-k and daycare to college(university), subsidized home heating, high taxes
on gasoline(petroleum), nationalized major industry, nationalize natural resources, all drinking water will be free, an (economic)nanny-state, and
banning all forms of lobbying, and ban private funds from entering political contests, expand labor unions, strict crack down on the black market,
tough regulation on the economy, and create a trade policy based around national interests.

On social issues I support legalizing marijuana, prostitution, gambling, extra-marital sex, ploygamy, gay marriage, euthanasia, stem cell research,
abortion, ban the death penalty, absolute seperation of church and state, ban all forms of government surveillance, lower the drinking age to 18, and
end any form of government discrimination.

And I would reform the government by abolishing the senate, making DC a state along with Puerto Rico, abolish the UN Security Council, exit
WTO/IMF/WB, support most UN resolutions, become a mediator for international conflict, amend the constitution to declare USA a neutral country, close
all international military bases, nationalize all current government industries(including NASA), Strengthen states' rights, exit NATO, enter a
special economic/political relationship with the the Arctic countries(i.e. European countinent, Russia, and Canada).

We have much in common, and I am surprised as such views are seldom represented on ATS. Although I do not believe in the legalization of all drugs,
prostitution (from a non-economical standpoint) or the banning of Government surveillance, I am completely on board with state-run industries subject
to heavy regulation and compliance.

I believe that if a state is benevolent, run by the people for the people, and accountable to the public, then having it's hands in as many issues as
possible is ideal as it would keep the interests of the public good (I mean good in a healthy and moral sense) afloat in all sectors of society.

However I must ask you, why would you want to remove the United States from NATO?

Ah makes sense. Perhaps that is a good idea, but my views would be different. I believe that a country does need a military that's capable of
defending its borders, but not to be used for imperialist reasons otherwise. When trouble arises and national sovereignty is threatened, good friends
can be useful.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.